Paul Russell: Canadians voice surprising support for the NRA

Canadians voice surprising support for the NRA

The issue of gun control is often a source of lively debate on the National Post’s Letters page. A new twist was added to that discussion this week — the views of the National Rifle Association (NRA). While that group is often portrayed in the media as nothing more than a lobby group for gun owners and manufacturers, we heard from at least a dozen Canadian letter writers who claim the NRA is more of a civil rights organization — with a mission to ensure that a vital part of the U.S. Constitution is adhered to.

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting, or even self defence,” wrote Bryan Moir. “It is about the tyranny of government. It was born from a profound first-hand experience of how loyal British subjects were betrayed on April 19, 1775 by their government, which sent soldiers to seize guns and ammunition. This is why Americans, and in particular the NRA, are adamant in defending and preserving the Second Amendment. They know the tyranny of government.”

Mr. Moir also defended the NRA’s idea to train armed guards for all U.S. schools — a concept that was ridiculed in a recent National Post editorial as “a truly batty idea,” as well as in Tasha Kheiriddin’s Thursday column, “The NRA keeps on digging.”

“For the record, Bill Clinton initiated and funded the idea of armed guards at schools back in 2000 after Columbine.” Mr. Moir added.

“Today there are over 23,000 schools across the U.S. with armed guards and none of these have had a mass shooting.”

“Has there ever been a mass shooting at a gun show, or does this only happen at government-mandated shooting galleries, such as schools?” added Rod Shewchuk. He endorsed another NRA idea: To broaden concealed carry laws, which have been “successful in reducing murder and mayhem … thousands of American teachers are taking shooting instruction with a view toward protecting their students and themselves.”

A handful of letter writers also took Ms. Kheiriddin to task for not questioning how Barack Obama introduced 23 executive measures related to U.S. gun control.

“Ms. Kheiriddin says gun owners should “be embarrassed that the NRA would stoop so low as to drag Barack Obama’s children into this issue [the Sandy Hook tragedy],” wrote Ken Bagnall. “Yet she doesn’t comment on the President’s grandstanding use of children in his press conference about gun control. It seems she is part of the large claque (people hired to either applaud or boo) in the media that seems to believe that any reporting of or comment on events or issues that do not reflect favourably on the Great One.”

Others said Ms. Kheiriddin misinterpreted the NRA’s position.

“Tasha Kheiriddin says she ‘doubts most Americans would be very happy living in the equivalent of an armed camp,’ ” wrote Pavel Sorokin.

“The fact is, Americans have been happily bearing arms for centuries. The Founding Fathers envisioned the need for citizens to defend themselves against their government; this is why bearing arms is a right, not a privilege. NRA members don’t care what their opponents say; they care about their freedom and are prepared to defend it.”

“Barack Obama is trying to give the American military an edge over the American public,” agreed Frank Hilliard. “That is something that clearly infringes on the right of the citizenry to oppose the government by force.”

Only a few letter writers questioned the NRA’s methodology. Here’s one.

“Your letter writers are whitewashing the NRA’s recent history,” wrote Ron Charach. “This organization began with the noble mandate of improving marksmanship and gun safety, but since 1977, when it got hijacked by a extremists named Harlon B. Carter and Neal Knox, has cost many more lives than it has saved, especially the lives of African-Americans and of law-enforcement officers … What in hell does an AK-47 have to do with the spirit of American freedoms?”

— Are National Post readers mostly angry, white, conservative males? On Tuesday, letter-writer Andrew Nellis declared that to be the case, noting that native protests have stirred up a “raging, hate-filled frenzy of racism and bile from you neo-cons … Idle No More must be doing something right if it’s provoking the kind of intense, contemptuous whitemale (a term we leftists use to refer to refer to the sort of stereotyped behaviour we’ve come to expect from the Angry White Male demographic which makes up the Post’s readership) I see in your propaganda.”

In Wednesday’s paper, two readers (both female, though I didn’t ask about their skin colour) assured Mr. Nellis that the Post’s readership is diverse and worldly. Here are a few more notes to correct his misconceptions about the Post’s readership.

“Andrew Nellis characterizes the frustration felt by hardworking taxpayers toward Chief Theresa Spence as a ‘hate-filled frenzy of racism’ emanating from the Angry White Male neocons,” wrote Milan Mijatovic. “Actually, most rabid, supremacist Huns, like myself, are more disappointed with the politically correct left-wing poopsies who are unable to be honest about a situation that is perpetually debilitating to every citizen of this country, native or otherwise. Facing hard truths (like peeking, now and then, at the Post) means there is always hope for you, Mr. Nellis.”

“As an ‘angry white male’ Post reader, it might be useful to point out who we are all angry at,” added Herb Schultz. “It is not First Nations or Idle No More — but rather the rather stunning ignorance displayed by Mr. Nellis’ comments on hate and racism. His leftist compatriots are always the very first to lecture the world on stereotyping — yet in a single sentence he has stereotyped the entire Post readership not only by political viewpoint, but by race and sex as well. We are indeed angry at ‘self-righteous hypocrites,’ (a term we neo-cons use to describe the leftist demographic which Mr. Nellis claims to represent).”

— Sometimes, what is not in the paper is just as important as what is. I’ll allow this reader to explain.

“Keep up the great work,” wrote Joan P. Mitchell early this week. “There have been no stories or columns on Justin Trudeau for a whole week.”

But maybe news editors aren’t to blame for consistently running photos of the young Trudeau, as this reader notes. “Justin Trudeau’s ability to get his picture in the paper is inherited,” explained Howard M. Greenfield. “He’s not just photogenic; he’s photogenetic.”

— Last week I ended this column with this note from a reader: “When I open my National Post, I first scan the front page, then go to the back page and read the Issues, Ideas Letters and Editorial pages,” wrote Charles Davidson. “Anyone else do the same?”

A handful of readers sent in notes this week, saying they do the same.

“I read the Post exactly the same way,” wrote Peter Koning. “There’s nothing like breakfast plus the first and last pages your paper.”

In the wake of a Grammy Awards ceremony that disappointed many, from Kanye West to the masses on Twitter lamenting the state of pop music, a historical perspective is key. Few are better poised to offer one than Andy Kim.